Compare And Contrast The Law Enforcement Powers And Responsibilities Act 2002 (Lepra)

Police makes the decision whether to investigate a crime based on the likelihood of success, available resources and priorities or the severity of the offence. Police can use several methods and authorised powers to assist their investigation. Most of NSW Police’s powers are listed out in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW). Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) is an act introduced in 2001, which outlines police powers and authority. Main police powers in investigating crime are: arrest, search and seizure, access to information (computerised operation policing system), interrogation and use force is necessary to carry out duties.

“The police have a number of powers of stop and search. When using any power they must always have regards to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) codes of practice.” The effectiveness of the police stop and search procedures being used as a valuable tool in the detection of crime can be measured by looking at the role that stop and searches play in policing and the arrests they lead to. However their impact on the community and the negative image it has given the police force outweigh the results generated from stop and searches. It has been found through various reports such as one by The Equality and Human Rights Commission, arrests for serious offenses are less likely to follow from stop and searches however they do play

Through the Law Enforcement Powers and Responsibilities Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA), police have certain powers to help them do their jobs and enforce the law. But these powers that police have been granted also have limits to help protect the rights of the victim, the suspect and the society “particularly when these powers affect the civil liberties of members in the community whom the police serve” as stated by the former Attorney-General Robert Debus.

Preventative Detention Orders serve as a viable alternatives to judicial trials, by allowing Police to ‘detain or restrict the movement of individuals without charge or conviction’. External reviews of PDO’s by the Law Council of Australia has deemed these measures ‘justifiably balance security and civil liberties’ by prioritizing community safety over the presumed innocence of terror

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

Section 24 of PACE (1984) sets out the general powers of arrest which may be exercised by the Police as well as the public. However, S24 of PACE was substantially changed by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA, 2005). Section 110 of SOCPA replaced most of the existing powers of arrest with a new general power of arrest. It also created Code G of PACE which sets out when an officer might arrest. This power of arrest is only exercisable if the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary.

Police officers including approximately six armed members of the “Special Emergency Response Team” forcibly entered the appellants’ (Bulsey & Anor) house. Bulsey was taken from his bed, placed on the floor, handcuffed and dragged out to the street and later charged with riotous assembly and destruction of a building. In subsequent committal proceedings, the respondent conceded it did not have a case against the first appellant. He was discharged. Bulsey (the first appellant) sued the respondent for damages for trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment). Anor (the second appellant) sued the respondent for damages for assault and false imprisonment. The trial judge dismissed the appellants’ claims with costs, with judgments in favour of the respondent.

This assessment will focus on Section 1 of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Stop and Search powers). I will look at the use of stop and search before the Macpherson report and after the Macpherson report and compare how it has changed. The use of stop and search powers allow the police to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour, and to prevent more serious crimes occurring generally in public places like a Football match. A police officer can ask what you are doing, why you’re in an area and/or where you’re going. They also have the power to stop and search you if they have ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect you’re carrying; illegal drugs, a weapon, stolen

For three years, there has been through the courts and the streets a dreary procession of citizens with broken heads and bruised bodies against few of whom was violence needed to effect the arrest. In a majority of such cases, no complaint was made. If the victim complains, his charge is generally dismissed. The police are practically above the law (Moss, 343).

Safety is a fundamental right that we all deserve. Most of us rely on the government to provide this security. We pay for this through taxes, but the question that we must ask ourselves is are we getting what we are paying for? By paying our taxes to the government we are giving it the authority to choose the service we are getting back. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) is an Act of Parliament which instituted a legislative

Other cases that were observed through court visits further emphasised the nature of the judicial process in the Local Courts. The summary proceedings served in a number of cases to emphasise the triviality of the process. Cases involving minor offences such as traffic offences and petty theft were particularly trivial however other cases such as domestic violence and minor assault charges were not so inconsequential. They were of particular importance to the parties involved and it is thus important not to overgeneralise the process of the lower courts to being mere triviality. Whilst in the local courts there was an emphasis on speed and efficiency, this did not automatically mean that strict legality was disregarded. The importance placed on evidence and onus on the prosecutors in providing proof upheld important elements of the criminal justice system.

Every day police officers in every jurisdiction across America deal with some of the worst segments of our society, arrest these people, and then hopefully go home safe after a long day at work. They often times go home to a family who does not have the skillset or tools to protect themselves in the same manner or fashion as a police officer does. Families are left exposed to the potential for danger if one of these suspects later comes after their police officer spouse or parent. There are some jurisdictions that require their police officers to carry their service weapon off duty, and some that don’t require but do allow this if the officer chooses to do so. This is all well and good as long as the officer stays within their legal jurisdiction, but what happens if they want to take their family on a road trip up state, or out of state? The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, or LEOSA, is public policy on the federal level that was created to protect law enforcement officers on all levels (local, county, state, and federal) and is reciprocal throughout the fifty states as law. It is without a doubt a major protection for law enforcement officers while off duty and for those who are retired.

Section 24(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (henceforth, the PACE 1984) provides where an offence has been committed (as in this case, with the theft of £5,000 from Mr and Mrs Smith) it is possible for a police officer to arrest Bill without a warrant where they have reasonable grounds to suspect he is guilty (see Shields v. Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2010] EWCA Civ 1281 and Richardson v. Chief Constable of West Midlands [2011] EWHC 773). This provision of the PACE 1984 should then be read with sections 24(4) and 24(5) (Wilson, et al., 2014). The reason for this is that section 24(4) of the PACE 1984 provides summary arrest under section 24(3) of the Act may only be exercised if the police officer had reasonable grounds

This report shall examine the role of the police in the criminal justice system. For background it will detail a brief history of the development of the police then look at the later development of police powers of arrest, detention and of stop and search. Further to this it will examine the role of the police in miscarriages of justice and the effects of these miscarriages on the development of safeguards for people detained by the police. Also the measures taken to prevent further miscarriages of justice such as the development of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to decide if the evidence is there and a prosecution is likely to be successful.

Monday, October 02, 2017 at 14:42, city units were dispatched to assist the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC), DOC1 at the Jefferson County Fair Grounds, space #16. Officer Isett was out with two subjects, a male and female for violations of status. He was requesting city unit to assist with the male.